User talk:Massimo Catarinella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Some cookies to welcome you! :D
Some cookies to welcome you! :D

Welcome To Wikipedia! Hello, Massimo Catarinella, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay and make constructive edits. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and have a great time being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, I will always be willing to help or you can ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FPC nomination

Hey, welcome to [English] Wikipedia! I've fixed up your nomination a bit and left some comments there. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery in Cathedral

Hey, you did a bunch of changes to the gallery of images in Cathedral. I've reverted them, but I wanted to explain and invite you to discuss it further if you'd like. The existing set was somewhat carefully thought about, to include a spread of geographic styles and locations. If a change is suggested, then it should be clear that the changes are an improvement, and there was no way to see that, since you didn't make any comments in the edit logs. Also, you included St. Peter's Basilica, which is not even a cathedral, and so it surely didn't belong. Tb (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad for your work; I think that many of the images you added were beautiful, but let's work on incremental improvements. I don't object to adding images in similar places or styles to replace others, but it would be good to discuss them first b/c some care has gone into the selection. I agree completely that there is much room for improvement. As for St. Peter's, the cathedral of the Diocese of Rome is St. John Lateran, and St. Peter's is not a cathedral. The article on St. Peter's basilica is clear about the matter. Tb (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I mention St. Peter's because you included an image of St. Peter's in Cathedral, where it doesn't belong, because that page is about cathedrals. In any case, my request is that you post your suggestions for improvements on Talk:Cathedral so that they can be discussed. Tb (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit summary

You remember my comment on Amsterdam? I have seen in your contributions that you have never made a single edit summary. Perhaps you do not now what an edit summary is. Therefore this helpful link. Good editing... Tomeasytalk 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That will be fine. On the other hand, adding all the references, which you are currently doing is an extremely good job. Tomeasytalk 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] references need to support a claim

This reference about the market halls in Amsterdam does not back any of the claims we make in the Amsterdam article. Therefore, it's not right to put it at the end of the history paragraph as you did. It makes the readers think that there is a source backing at least the sentence that they have read before the citation, which is not the case here. As mush as I appreciate adding references, they have to match the statements in the text. I am writing here, because I did not want to revert you again (after reverting already the other reference), but rather inform you and ask to correct this in some way or another. Tomeasytalk 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article were the reference leads to states that this building is the first stock exchange of Amsterdam and that it was built in 1607. Therefore it is the oldest ongoing stock exchange in the world. But I will correct it.

Actually, it was in 1602. I corrected the whole sentence all together and placed a reference to it. Tomeasytalk 11:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very good that you are adding so many references. Did you take notice that I am correcting all of them with respect to one missing information, the publisher? It's a very useful information, so perhaps you can add this to the references that you are going to put next and, that would be great, to the references that you had put before.

Another comment: All you refs are in Dutch. It would be more appropriate to use English references, while some Dutch references is of course acceptable. I can imagine that you have specified your search engine to retrieve primarily Dutch sources. If you disable this feature, you will likely find a lot of English references. Thanks, and happy editing. Tomeasytalk 11:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. Just keep going, while trying to take my comments into account. I think we are on a good path. Once we have iterated through the article we might nominate again. Tomeasytalk 11:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you understand what I meant with this: one missing information, the publisher? Please, incorporate the publisher information, it's very easy and makes your references more useful. I am tired of running after you filling in this tag. Tomeasytalk 15:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Good that you ask. Below is the template for web citations. Just click on edit to see the source code and you will understand how it works. As you can see, there are many more fields that you might fill in. If possible, fill them all in. Unfortunately, nobody does that. Of course some are more and some are less important. After title and url, I consider publisher as the most important field. That's why I was so picky. I hope I could help you. You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}.. Tomeasytalk 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: changes

First of all, I do not know which of his edits you are objecting. User: Krator edited a lot today on Amsterdam. Second, and most important, I think it will be the best if you tell him directly, or make up a thread on the talk page about your objects and that you would like to revert them. I am sure he will not mind and if you provide strong arguments others might back your intention. In the end, we all want a better article. As a third point I would like to mention that you have the same right as I to revert an edit. So, if you consider this to be the way to go than you do not need my assistance. Tomeasytalk 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Large deletions are often contentious and IMHO should be discussed on the talk page. So, I can understand your feeling without having read the actual parts. Anyway, if you want my opinion, just contact him brievely and find out if he is OK with everything. Tomeasytalk 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amsterdam

Thank you for your new photographs of Amsterdam! I categorized them on Wikimedia Commons.

I removed the "International relations" section from the Amsterdam article. Apart from the fact that the table was incomplete, I believe it should not have a separate section in this article. The international relations could be mentioned in the City government section, but I prefer them to be only discussed in Government of Amsterdam#International cooperation. Unless you can find any sources that show the notability of the international cooperation. – Ilse@ 16:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)